Riegert Apartment Corp. v. Board of Trustees of the Village of Flower Hill, 57 N.Y.2d 266 (1982)

A municipality may condition a zoning amendment on the execution of a covenant requiring municipal consent for construction, and absent a clause requiring reasonable consent, the municipality is not obligated to grant consent or provide reasons for denial.

Summary

Riegert Apartment Corp. sought to enlarge a structure on property rezoned subject to a covenant requiring village board consent for alterations. The board denied their application without providing a reason. Riegert sued, arguing the denial was arbitrary and capricious and sought a court order compelling the board to issue the permits. The New York Court of Appeals held that, because the covenant lacked a clause requiring the board to act reasonably in granting or denying consent, the board was not required to approve the application or provide justification for the denial. The court affirmed the dismissal of Riegert’s complaint, emphasizing that courts should not imply terms into unambiguous agreements, and that challenging the lack of a reasonableness clause would jeopardize the original rezoning.

Facts

Riegert Apartment Corp. owned property in the Village of Flower Hill. In 1976, the prior owners had the property rezoned from a General Municipal and Public Purposes District to a Business District. This rezoning was conditioned on a recorded declaration of covenants. A key condition was that “[n]o building or structure situated on the Subject Premises on the date of this Declaration of Covenants will be altered, extended, rebuilt, renovated or enlarged without the prior consent of the Board of Trustees of the Village.” Riegert applied to the village board in 1978 to enlarge the existing structure. The board denied the application without explanation.

Procedural History

Riegert sued, arguing the board’s denial was arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, and unconstitutional, and sought an order compelling permit issuance. The Village moved to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, arguing the denial was not reviewable for reasonableness. Special Term denied the motion. The Appellate Division reversed, dismissing the complaint. Riegert appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether a municipality, in conditioning a zoning amendment on a property owner’s agreement to a declaration of covenants requiring municipal consent for building alterations, can deny such consent without providing a reason when the declaration does not contain a clause requiring that consent not be unreasonably withheld?

Holding

No, because the explicit language of the covenant required consent without any qualification of reasonableness, and courts should not imply terms into unambiguous agreements.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court addressed the permissibility of conditional zoning, acknowledging criticisms such as illegal spot zoning, bargaining away police power, and lack of enabling legislation. The court reasoned that conditional zoning, when properly implemented, allows flexibility in land-use control and minimizes potential negative impacts on neighboring properties, and should not be viewed as a contractual relationship but as a zoning regulation subject to the police power.

The Court rejected Riegert’s argument that a “reasonableness” requirement should be implied into the consent provision. It emphasized the explicit language of the declaration and the absence of any inherent ambiguity. The Court stated, “Where language has been chosen containing no inherent ambiguity or uncertainty, courts are properly hesitant, under the guise of judicial construction, to imply additional requirements to relieve a party from asserted disadvantage flowing from the terms actually used”.

The Court also rejected the argument that the board was legally required to include a reasonableness prescription, stating that there was no authority for the court to retroactively reform the zoning enactment. The court noted that a challenge to the validity of the 1976 enactment due to the absence of a reasonableness clause would cause the property to revert to its less favorable pre-1976 zoning classification, a result Riegert sought to avoid.

Therefore, the Court held that the village board could not be compelled to issue consent or provide a reason for denial, given the explicit terms of the covenant and the absence of a requirement for reasonableness.